What should happen to Hacktivists?

A Hacktivist is someone who does detrimental computer mischief for a cause.

Before the "Manson Family" committed their murders, they broke into houses and rearranged the people's furniture, if they didn't like them.

Should all of these Hacktivists be on a WatchList of some sort, in order to keep an eye out for escalated activity?

Or should they be banned from any Internet use at all?

They shut down airports in just one attack.

What if they decide to shut down airplanes in flight? Or Hack the Power Grid, killing anyone on powered life support?

I mean, some idiot who doesn't realize their agenda is flawed, you would want to keep a gun out of their hands, right?

So why aren't we keeping the Internet out of some people's hands?

a reply to: CryHavoc

Because armed citizens are your best bet against tyranny...

But it comes with an unpleasant prize when education is low...

a reply to: CryHavoc

So why aren't we keeping the Internet out of some people's hands?

Considering everybody walks around with a smartphone in their pocket, which is just about connected to the internet at all times, how would you have them do that?

BOOOOOOOOO!

Most were co-opted by 3 letter government agencies....
source

The majority of the "hactivists" now are government shills.

originally posted by: andy06shake
how would you have them do that?

The same way we keep people from leaving their house when they are on house arrest. You add a device to their smartphone or home computer. And if they remove the device, you arrest them.

I take it nobody saw that Microsoft got Hacked a week ago?

a reply to: CryHavoc

And how are you going to know they don't simply use another phone or computer not this attached to this "device"?

There is a difference between electronic tags around someone's ankle and being able to monitor their online activity.

As to Microsoft being hacked last week, well it would not be the first time.

Take for instance October of 2022, when data on over 548,000 users was found on a ""misconfigured"" server.

a reply to: CryHavoc

Regarding cyber threats, hacktivists are not quite the least problematic, but they are only just over unintentional insider threats. I've worked with incident response teams for a while now; I don't think I've seen a hacktivist threat yet. This is working with oil and gas, power generation, financial, etc., all the folks you would think would be popped by hacktivists.

As for MS getting hacked, happens pretty regularly. Zero days are found in the code they put out; some you hear about, some you never will. I would, if nothing else, try not to give into the FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) around hacktivism; it's really not something to be concerned about. Now a nation-state-sponsored group taking our critical infrastructure, that's more realistic. Taking down planes in flight is also a super low likelihood based on the complexities of getting the malicious code on board; even then, what would be the point of it?

most activist groups appear too be funded either directly or indirectly by big business and/or government..

not much different to the terrorist groups in the 70s funded and armed in the same way. at one point we used to laugh at the absurdity of it all.. but the same is true now even the conservatives fund the socialist activist to create their reason to exist and write ever more authoritarian laws..

at some point some will bite the hand that feeds them.

now where have we seen that before

originally posted by: JAY1980
Most were co-opted by 3 letter government agencies....
source

The majority of the "hactivists" now are government shills.

tend to think of most as extensions of the gov.

a reply to: CryHavoc

This is pre-crime stuff.

Just because someone has the ability it shouldn't mean we lock them up because; reasons.

a reply to: DBCowboy

except i'm sure precrime will find a lot of adherents in modern society because fair trials are wrong..

originally posted by: CryHavoc
A Hacktivist is someone who does detrimental computer mischief for a cause.

Before the "Manson Family" committed their murders, they broke into houses and rearranged the people's furniture, if they didn't like them.

Should all of these Hacktivists be on a WatchList of some sort, in order to keep an eye out for escalated activity?

Or should they be banned from any Internet use at all?

They shut down airports in just one attack.

What if they decide to shut down airplanes in flight? Or Hack the Power Grid, killing anyone on powered life support?

I mean, some idiot who doesn't realize their agenda is flawed, you would want to keep a gun out of their hands, right?

So why aren't we keeping the Internet out of some people's hands?

I mean; this was a possibility in the 1990's, but now everything is a computer. So you say; you're not allowed around computers or internet connections, and then they basically are exiled and marooned without the ability to look for work. Phones are computers, cars are computers. You can hack someone from an electric vehicle with wifi.

You can't be banned from the internet when every device that we rely on is connected to it. You can't throw a stone without hitting a wifi connected computer. I mean even a new dishwasher has wifi. Smart Fridges submit your orders automatically to walmart for replenishing what's inside your fridge. This might seem conveinent, but it's really about knowing what you've got in your cooler. Any software can be hacked, and computer can be jailbroken... Keep in mind that hackers have been "hacking" before computers, or do I need to inform you about payphone phreaking or social hacking. Most electronic hacking depends on social hacking. Here is an exmaple; you're hungry and you need to eat; you hangout near a pizza shop and you follow a dude in who orders for carry out, you stand by him as he orders, maybe you ask him a question, he pays and leaves, and comes back, but as he leaves, you leave with him. This creates the perception that y'all were together. You pay attention to the estimation of time "We'll have that ready for you in an hour" == you come back in 55 minutes and you say "Carry out order for Harry..." they hand you the pizza. That's social hacking.

Fundamentally I don't believe anybody has any authority to tell you you're not allowed to do something, right? I'll qualify that -- if someone is violent and they have a history of violence, and comitted a crime related to violence, that shouldn't remove their ability to have a gun. If they can't be trusted to have a gun, then they can't be trusted to not be in jail -- it's really that simple.

When you serve a jail sentence and you come out, you've paid your penalty and served your time. The idea of probation and restrictions IS a trap. That's not about restricting people, it's about knowing you can't and giving them an expressed ticket back into prison.

I don't believe in conditioned releases. Do A; get B. When B is served, you're supposed to be free again. Period. Anybody that doesn't get this fundamentally is someone that is uneducated. Career criminals often would like to NOT be, but they can't get work because of background checks and restrictions from their record. So when you blackball someones ability to make money properly and they can't live, what do you expect them to do?

The current legal system and the systematic condition based releases actually don't prevent new offenses; they garauntee it. If you can't reason that a person has paid their pennance, then you shouldn't be letting them go to begin with.

This idea that felons can't vote or have their protected rights restored after they served their time.... Well -- did they serve their time? Because if they did, then their debt is paid in full.

The point is the idea of removing peoples freedoms after they've served their time isn't about preventing crime, it's about ensuring a repeat stint. Don't blame the tools for a person misbehavior. If you ban a dude from the internet, all you're doing is assuring he'll have to obscure his crime next time, and he'll be for sure incognito now, because he'll just use someone elses device.

In other words; this sounds decent on paper and at a cursory glance, but it really doesn't work and is impossible and creates a whole new level of incognito for his next crime; were he the type to repeat his offense.

These are the types of decisions that are made with an agenda in mind, and the less intelligent gobble it up because it's sounds good superficially. If you apply any scrutiny at all, it all falls apart.

So no -- I'd say the premise is flawed, it's also impossible to uphold, it defies the fact that the man's penalties were paid and you can't STOP behavior. You can incentivize good behavior with particular inputs and recieve desired outputs, but you can't ban bad behaviors -- that's never worked in the history of the universe.

People don't learn from punishment, punishment creates resentment and removes economic viability, potentials, and reduces the options. Criminal's don't care about your criminal record; all of the illegal options are still available.

If you take away honest options, and you understand you can't remove criminal options; what do you expect a convict to do when their honest options were removed? Is it the fault of that person when they repeat offend? Or is it the fault of the policy that says your only options are now criminal?

originally posted by: andy06shake
There is a difference between electronic tags around someone's ankle and being able to monitor their online activity.

And Proximity sensors can tell someone when you are close to a computer. And Wi-Fi sensors. And I'm sure they can come up with more.

I don't see any reason why this can't be happening right now.

Great thread! "What if this totally hypothetical thing happens in the future? We should greatly restrict personal freedoms to prevent it!!"

Have you considered a career in public service?

In the 19th Century - how do we stop the Native Americans from attacking the trains?

There, you are now "chief ticket-checker".

Co-option, I guess.

Not saying everyone took the bait, but it's one strategy.

Probably going back in some form to at least Roman times.

a reply to: CryHavoc

Should all of these Hacktivists be on a WatchList of some sort, in order to keep an eye out for escalated activity?

Or should they be banned from any Internet use at all?
...

So why aren't we keeping the Internet out of some people's hands?

This thread is comedy gold.

You do realize that people who occupy themselves with illegal stuff online take great care not to leave footprints so that they can't be tracked down? If they fail, they end up arrested. Damaging someone's property, like an online website, is a crime even if it's done for a cause.

It's impossible to preemptively put cyber criminals or criminal activists on the watchlists because nobody knows their identity unless they f*ck it up.

a reply to: CryHavoc

Where would we be without it.. Has the ability to share information that the government cartel is intent on kept hidden. Look at the podesta leaks for example or Wilikieaks..

Its a form of protest. Would you prefer to live in a world where protest was illegal.?

originally posted by: purplemer
Would you prefer to live in a world where protest was illegal.?

I prefer to live in a world where people are smart enough to realize that Internet access is not a right.

Or shouldn't be.

Just like driving a car isn't a right. it's why we have licenses. You misuse your car, don't complain about not being allowed to drive. How is that enforced?

This isn't that hard of a concept.

a reply to: GotterDameron23

Would you prefer to live in a world where protest was illegal.?

Funny how you dont answer the question. I guess you are one of these people that thinks 'rights' are governmental blessings.

Driving a car not a right.. you know there are peeps driving cars under common law without the use of a license. Something wrong with the human that argues away their own freedoms. I guess some people like the cage. IN some ways its safe and people prefer that to freedom.



lol